OK, this is to the many people who have called me out on saying it had no reason to be there apart from shock value:
One; it can be skipped, with approximately zero loss of understanding to the story. This alone shows that there was really no NEED for the scene. You can refer to it alone and it works just fine. One could argue it's better to show than tell, sure, but...
Two: It never really justifies its existence in that regard either. The only thing playing the scene shows is that it's brutal and nasty and horrible.
Now, I would like to show a contrast of two games that did similar concepts, but did them well. Namely, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.
First, the infamous nuke scene. This scene had endlessly more punch and ferocity and is no less dreadful in its content -- An entire city blown to pieces by a single man. The character you've come to empathise with and appreciate dies under your control. "Deadly", the pilot you rescue beforehand, can be seen as you crawl away from the wreckage, turning your quest to save her into tragic irony.
See that? That's the undertone. That's the emotional impact. It's everything No Russian lacks.
But even there was a better scene: When you take control of an AC-130 gunship. This scene was chilling in every sense, the eerie black and white graphics, muted noise of explosions, etc. was designed to make you feel not like you were playing the part of a bomber but that you WERE a bomber. Every time you pressed that trigger, people died on the ground. You were almost immune to retaliation. It was brutal, horrible stuff. And it scared the crap out of me in a way No Russian could only dream of.
As I've said: No Russian was gratuitious. You could have just as easily left it alone, or constructed a less horrific scenario, or hinted at the destruction created without showing it to you directly.
But they didn't. They knew darn well what they wanted, and what they wanted was controversy.
